all 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [S] 57 points 2 years ago (2 children)

A 1980s modernization lead to the Iowa class actually being equipped with some modern toys too

Sensors

  • Mark 13 fire control radar
  • Mark 25 fire control radar
  • AN/SPS-49
  • AN/SPS-67

Electronic Warfare and Decoys

  • AN/SLQ-32(V)3 electronic warfare system
  • AN/SLQ-25 Nixie acoustic decoy
  • Mark 36 SRBOC chaff rockets

Armament

  • 9 × 16 in/50 cal guns (3 Mounts x3)
  • 12 × 5 in/38 cal guns (6 Mounts x2)
  • 32 × BGM-109 Tomahawk launchers (8 Launchers x4)
  • 16 × RGM-84 Harpoon launchers (4 Mounts x4)
  • 4 × 20 mm Phalanx CIWS

and 5 UAVs

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa-class_battleship

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Yes, very nice, but hear me out: What if all that but also railguns?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Railgun tech isn't there yet, the bottleneck is currently what's bottlenecking a lot of higher tech, and that bottleneck is energy generation, storage, and consumption, so that's why we don't see more railgun and laser based tech.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Nothing like throwing a shell the weight of a car at the enemy.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It’s not “outdated” materiel if the entire arsenal of your opponent is outdated.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It's not outdated if it still makes your enemy's stuff go boom.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 27 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What with the advances in guided and rocket-assisted artillery lately, I am unironically (and, considering the sub, I should also say credibly) convinced that there will be a naval gunnery renaissance in the next couple decades.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Not only that, VLS cells can't be reloaded at sea, you have to go into port for that. Artillery shells don't have that problem.

    I also wonder how well anti-missile systems would work against artillery. I think it's feasible to have some artillery on board vessels as a secondary to fall back on after spending all of the anti-ship missiles. Or you could fire the artillery alongside missiles to increase the variety of threats the target has to respond to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Consider C-RAM (Army Phalanx) stands for Counter Rocket, Artillery, Mortar: I would assume it works perfectly fine against most artillery. But also, I suppose it would depend on the size of the artillery and type of the round. I wouldn’t expect a spray of 20-30mm rounds to do much at all to the trajectory of a 406mm Mk. 8 APC shell, for instance… but none of those are in service anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Massive, inaccurate guns just aren't relevant to warfare anymore. A Tomahawk missile can hit a target with high precision and comparable payload at 50x the range of the Iowa's 16 inch guns. And for sustained bombardment, Arleigh Burkes have 5-inch guns that can fire 20 rounds a minute.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 18 points 2 years ago

    Good news they also have Tomahawks!

    As part of their modernization in the 1980s, each of the Iowas received a complement of eight quad-cell Armored Box Launchers and four "shock hardened" Mk 141 quad-cell launchers. The former was used by the battleships to carry and fire the BGM-109 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs) for use against enemy targets on land, while the latter system enabled the ships to carry a complement of RGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles for use against enemy ships. With an estimated range of 675 to 1,500 nautical miles (1,250 to 2,778 km; 777 to 1,726 mi)[103] for the Tomahawks and 64.5 to 85.5 nautical miles (119.5 to 158.3 km; 74.2 to 98.4 mi)[103] for the Harpoons, these two missile systems displaced the 16-inch guns and their maximum range of 42,345 yards (38.7 km; 20.9 nmi)[36] to become the longest-ranged weapons on the battleships during the 1980s; the ships' complement of 32 Tomahawk missiles was the largest until the Mk 41 VLS-equipped Ticonderoga-class cruisers entered service.

  • source
  • parent